Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
Framing the Effectiveness of Leader-Follower Relationship
Master Thesis in Leadership and Management
Author: Mohamed Elziadi & Fatin Qassis Supervisor: Mikael Lundgren
Examiner: Lars Lindkvist
Table of Contents
1 Introduction – What it is all really about? ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Problem Discussion and Relevance of the Study ... 4
1.3 Research question and Research objectives ... 5
2 Research Methodology ... 7
2.1 Research Design ... 7
2.2 Conceptual Research ... 9
2.2.1 Research Approach ... 11
2.2.2 Conceptual Mapping ... 11
2.2.3 Data Collection ... 12
2.2.4 Relevant Literature to our Conceptual Research ... 13
2.2.5 Validity and Credibility of our Conceptual Research ... 14
2.2.6 Ethical Considerations ... 15
3 Theoretical Framework ... 16
3.1 Human Intelligence ... 16
3.2 Cultural Intelligence ... 19
3.3 Work Relationships ... 21
3.4 Leader-Follower Relationship ... 24
3.5 Trust ... 29
3.6 Mutual Understanding / Conflict ... 31
3.7 Organizational Commitment ... 33
4 Data Analysis ... 35
4.1 Conceptual Model Portrait ... 35
4.2 Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Mediating the Role of Trust Building on Leader-Follower Relationship ... 38
4.3 Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Mediating the Role of Mutual Understanding on Leader-Follower Relationship ... 45
4.4 Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Mediating the Role of Organizational Commitment on Leader-Follower Relationship ... 53
5 Research Discussion ... 59
5.1 Discussion for the correlation between CQ and trust building ... 59
5.2 Discussion for the correlation between CQ and mutual understanding / conflict ... 67
5.3 Discussion for the correlation between CQ and organizational commitment ... 69
5.4 Research Limitations ... 73
5.5 Answering the Research Question ... 74
5.6 Theoretical Implications ... 76
5.7 Practical Implications ... 77
5.8 Future Research Implications ... 78
5.9 Conclusions ... 80
5.10 Authors’ Contributions to the Research ... 81
List of References ... 82
Abstract
Since the world moved into the 21st century and we are competing in a global marketplace, a growing number of organizations have become multinational. Leadership today is a multicultural challenge. Thus, the organizational context requires leaders who are capable of managing the diversity of employees. The globalized world requires leaders with high cultural intelligence (CQ) to boost relationships with their followers while implementing leadership projects and programs. Therefore, cultural intelligence (CQ) competencies have become a more demanding capability for both leaders and followers. This thesis aims to investigate how cultural intelligence (CQ) becomes an influencing factor in fostering the effectiveness of a leader-follower relationship through mediating the role of organizational commitment, trust and mutual understating / conflict. So, as a starting point, we employ a conceptual research approach to build a conceptual model and to propose hypotheses that may help us explore our study.
We suggest that leaders and followers with higher levels of cultural intelligence (CQ) can consciously influence the effectiveness of leader- follower relationships while catalyzing and correlating the role of organizational commitment, trust and mutual understanding/conflict.
Leaders’ and followers’ cultural intelligence (CQ) can thus positively build a relation with organizational commitment, trust and mutual understanding.
The thesis does thereby contribute to an understanding of the theory of cultural intelligence (CQ) and its impact on the relationship between leaders and followers.
Key words
Human Intelligence - Cultural Intelligence - Work Relationships - Leaders- followers Relationship - Trust - Mutual Understanding / Conflict - Organizational Commitment.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all those who helped and motivated us during our work on this master thesis.
Firstly, special thank from our hearts go to our supervisor Mikael Lundgren.
We are grateful for his time and effort to supervise us not only in writing our master thesis during the last two months but also as a good lecturer who never hold back a moment to help and raise advices. We are thankful for his support and much-valued inputs, and his constructive recommendations that helped us to improve and refine our thesis.
Secondly, heartfelt thanks are due to our examiner Lars Lindkvist for his honest and challenging critique during the seminars, his valuable recommendations were essential to light-up our thesis.
Finally, thanks to all lecturers and class-mates we met within this master program in Linnaeus University in Kalmar. All of you have made this year a wonderful and good experience for us.
Thank you!
______________ ________________
Fatin Qassis Mohamed Elziadi
1 Introduction – What it is all really about?
“Organizations often appoint leaders for their IQ. Then, years later, sack them for their lack of EQ (Emotional Intelligence). Common purpose argues that in the future they will promote for CQ - Cultural Intelligence.”
(Middleton, 2014, n.a.)
1.1 Background
As we are international students who are studying in Sweden, we have a great interest in studying the cultural intelligence (CQ) which becomes a trend nowadays and yet we prepare ourselves through studying this master’s program to be international leaders/managers that will experience working with multicultural groups.
Brooks Peterson defined the term CQ in his book Cultural Intelligence: A Guide to working with people from other cultures that “Cultural intelligence is the ability to engage in a set of behaviors that uses skills (i.e., language or interpersonal skills) and qualities (e.g., tolerance for ambiguity, flexibility) that are tuned appropriately to the culture-based values and attitudes of the people with whom one interacts” (Peterson, 2004, p.89).
Jeff Thomas, one of the highly experienced international executives argued in one of his ted talks that measuring the global effectiveness ‘referring to the leaders’ is something he uses in his work every day just as IQ measures leaders’ intelligence quotient and EQ measures the levels of empathy, CQ tells how well they are able to work with diverse groups of people. It was argued by Groves & Feyerherm (2011) and Caputo et al., (2018) that increasingly organizations in their structures are becoming multicultural and this includes their scope of work. Thanks to the advancements of telecommunications, technology, and free mobility of workers, people from different cultures are interconnecting every day, presenting significant
challenges not only to the workplaces but also to communities. These patterns have improved workforce diversity, processes and management of work teams. As demonstrated by Earley and Ang (2003) the term cultural intelligence (CQ) has constructed the awareness of understanding other cultures, willingness to communicate within other cultures, and communication actions adapting to specific cultures. Moreover, the previous studies by Earley and Ang of cultural intelligence components determined that these components are not intelligences that a leader should have but it works as determinants of satisfaction and performance of the workplace. A study by Romero and Stone (2005) argued that high-level of culture intelligence (CQ) can make employees’ high satisfaction and performance possible by considering the impact of cultural values that they bring to the workplace. As a successful leader with high cultural intelligence (CQ), he/she can analyze and adapt leadership styles and perspectives to the specific cultural situations, and recognize the different personalities of the diverse workforce at the organizational setting. We think that not only the role of leaders with high cultural intelligence (CQ) will influence the performance and satisfaction for followers at workplace, but followers with high cultural intelligence (CQ) can reach satisfaction and perform effectively and might need less guidance by their leaders. Thus, “Employee with low CQ may be less adapt in these skills, and may more advantage more from managerial interference that help them better manage cultural opportunity in thinking and behaviors that lead to more confidence, sense of control, and positive interaction, that translate to higher commitment and performance”
(Anvari et al., 2014, p.46-47).
In the study of a culture in general, Margaret Mead proposed that culture is a shared pattern of behavior and argued by Schneider et al., (2014), the same behavior can have different meanings and different behaviors can have the same meaning. “Culture might be described as shared assumptions, values
and behaviors that distinguish one group from another and are passed on from one generation to the next” (Schneider et al., 2014, p.4). Schneider et al. (2014) argued that culture shapes not only our social interactions, organizational practices and behaviors, but also what motivates our attitudes, feelings and actions at the workplace. Organizational culture can be considered to reflect industry, regional, professional, national, ethnic, religious and linguistic cultures (ibid). “It is clear that culture is transmitted and reinforced through socialization, and provides the means to adapt and survive in a given environment and to know how to live together” (ibid, p.28). As, we are discussing corporate culture, American managers tend to see culture as something organizations have; European managers are more likely to see it as something that organizations are, and are thus more dubious about being able to change it (Schneider et al., 2014). Managers, teams and organizations have to confront cultural differences, to learn from them and to devise ways of utilizing them creatively in order to leverage their value- adding potential (ibid). “Culture can be a powerful force that can undermine or propel business success” (ibid, p.1). Schneider et al. (2014) confirm that recognizing cultural differences is the necessary first step to anticipating potential threats and opportunities for business encounters. But in order to go beyond awareness and to create useful interaction, these differences need to be open for discussion. For many people, discussing cultural differences is considered dangerous since differences are believed to be a source of conflict. However, we think that recognizing and discussing cultural differences is important for building trustful relationships at the organizational setting, as we can build a hybrid culture which can create win- win relationship among the diverse team members. “We have to surface cultural differences and make them open to discussion in order to avoid the risks of getting caught in the undertow and dragged out into a sea of cultural difficulties” (ibid, p.1). “Rather than seeing culture as a problem to be solved, there is evidence that culture can provide a source of competitive
advantage” (ibid, p.11). It was argued by Moua (2010) that leaders who are considered to be new in and unfamiliar with the cultural settings should be able to realize that the cultural signals they are receiving are vary significantly from their own. Thus, they should find something familiar and look for signs and hints that help them to adjust. “It is often easier in the short run to ignore culture than to deal with its complexity, but leaders need to acknowledge their own cultural baggage as they understand the importance of gaining an awareness of culture. Ignoring culture is like driving down the highway and taking your hands off the steering wheel. You may have started out in the right direction, but the vehicle will quickly veer off in unintended directions” (Connerley & Pedersen, 2005, p.2).
“Cultural differences are expressed in different expectations about the purpose of the team and how the team is supposed to operate. Some of these expectations are related to the task strategies: how the tasks are structured;
roles, or who does what and when; and how decisions are made. Other expectations are related to the process of team building, language, participation, ways of managing conflict and team evaluation” (Schneider et al., 2014, p.218).
1.2 Problem Discussion and Relevance of the Study
While many attempts have been made to understand the issue of adopting cultural intelligence (CQ) as reflected through the research and existing literature on the topic, majority of these attempts had an outside overview and considered the issue either from the political aspect of immigrants’
integration or wider organizational context. All these contribute to how people relate with each other both in and outside the workplace.
Fitzsimmons et al., (2011) argued in their study on ‘multicultural in global organizations’ that given the rapid increase in the number of multicultural
workers, few global organizations use more than one culture or trying to find a standard culture to leverage their employees’ abilities, while some organizations may be not aware of their skills or may even see them as a source of threat.
Rockstuhl et al., (2011) have cited different studies by House et al., (2004), Shin et al., (2007), and Yeung & Ready (1995) and they concluded that the social problems of leadership are becoming especially complex when leaders are working in multicultural contexts because cultural background influences prototypes and schemes about the appropriate leadership behaviors. In the light of this study, Rockstuhl et al., (2011) exemplified that culture intelligence (CQ) may influence the assumptions of the preferred leadership styles, managerial activities and the nature of relationships with followers.
This study will draw the map of how both of us as future leaders can use CQ to enhance our relationships with followers/co-workers who are having different backgrounds and of course working in a multicultural organization.
Our research will however be centered on how cultural intelligence (CQ) impacts the effectiveness of leader-follower relationship.
“In a world where crossing boundaries is routine, CQ becomes a vitally important aptitude and skill” (Earley, M., & Mosakowski, E., 2004, p.139).
We would like to take the existing debate on cultural intelligence (CQ) as a step further as we cannot neglect the fact that we are one of the groups who are impacted by multiculturalism. We believe our findings will be beneficial both from an academic and practical point of view. We also believe that our research will provide new insights into a currently much talked about but scarcely investigated area.
1.3 Research question and Research objectives
The research will give an insight of multidimensional cultural intelligence (CQ) in framing the leader-follower relationship in pertinence with
multiculturalism, what they believe, what they expect from each other, and how they get to know each other as what we believe that the relation might be complicated and having loads of conflicts.
The goal of our research is to have a deeper understanding of how cultural intelligence (CQ) affects leader-follower relationship. The research objective is that we are going to explore how other studies conceptualized the theory of cultural intelligence (CQ) where in some ways affects and influences leader and followers’ relationship. We are integrating trust, mutual understanding/conflict and organizational commitment as moderating variables that can catalyze the relationship with cultural intelligence (CQ).
Thus, we believe that in their correlation, it can frame the effectiveness of leader-follower relationship. The research questions that will be explored throughout the study will be as below:
❖ Main research question: -
- What is the role of cultural intelligence (CQ) in framing the effectiveness of leader-follower relationship?
❖ Sub-research question: -
- Considering the dyadic leader-follower relationship, in what way can cultural intelligence (CQ) mediating the role of trust, mutual understanding/conflicts and organizational commitment?
In writing our master thesis, we believe that these research questions will enable us to get to the gist of how the concept of multiculturalism works and tuned with the leader and followers’ relationship. Our viewpoint behind the selection of the sub-question is the assumption that trust, mutual understanding/conflict, and organizational commitment can enhance cultural intelligence (CQ) at the organizational context and thus frame the effectiveness of the relationship between leader and followers. Moreover,
relationship dimensions that typify effective relationships such as: trust, commitment, loyalty, accountability, flexibility, and support. By understanding how both leaders and followers experience and deal with the benefits and challenges of cultural diversity, we shall be able to appreciate the different efforts being made to encourage and improve this diversity.
We believe that these questions are ideal because they consider three different perspectives i.e. how the different parties understand and experience multiculturalism using the concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) as a base, what is being done currently and what can be done in the future to ensure that organizations benefit from the cultural differences and thus, will help us achieve our research objective.
2 Research Methodology
In the methodology chapter we provide a description of our research design and strategy, followed by an illustration of our conceptual research which has a sub-heading clarification for our research approach, conceptual mapping, and data collection, our conceptual research relevant literature, validity and credibility and ethical considerations.
2.1 Research Design
According to Saunders et al. (2016), the first methodological choice is whether the research follows a quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods research design. We have chosen the qualitative research method and to develop a conceptual model that could be tested in order to answer the research question. As the research question started with the ‘What’, so we have decided that our research will be an exploratory one since we want to explore the phenomenon of cultural intelligence and leader/followers’
relationship and to develop categories based on our theoretical findings,
which express areas of experience. “Research questions that are exploratory are likely to begin with ‘What’ or ‘How’” (Saunders et al., 2016, p.174).
The goal of our research is to test theories and discover literature findings and information on the topic, which could then lead us to new possible theoretical concepts. “An exploratory study is particularly useful if you wish to clarify your understanding of an issue, problem or phenomenon, such as if you are unsure of its precise nature” (Saunders et al., 2016, pp.174-175).
Our qualitative research design will be based on Maxwell (2013) interactive research model. According to Maxwell (2013), the interactive model is having five components.
1- Goals: why do we want to conduct our study on cultural intelligence?
We had done much effort to answer the goals of our research question and sub-question in 1.3.
2- Conceptual framework: from our experiences and readings of scholarly articles, journals and theories, we will be identifying of what is going on with the issue of cultural intelligence and how it affects the leader-follower relationship which is influenced by trust building, mutual understanding/conflicts, and organizational commitment. We will be drawing an understanding of the cultural intelligence issue, where it is having a correlation with leader- follower relationship at the workplace.
3- Research question/s: as discussed and pointed out earlier at the previous section, we have one research question and one sub-question which it will correlate and create relationships to the cultural intelligence as an independent variable.
4- Methods: It relates to what approaches and techniques will we use to collect and analyze our data. Maxwell (2013) referred to this section to have four components (a) the relationships that we are going to establish in our study. (b) Data sources which are going to be
journals, articles, and/or archival data. (c) Methods for collection data. (d) Data analysis strategies and techniques.
5- Validity: what are the plausible interpretations of our research results and why should the reader believe us as authors of this research?
In figure 1, we are displaying the relationships among the five components.
As argued by Maxwell (2013) that research question is the hub of the model and connects all other components of the model. “What is innovative is the way the relationships among the components are conceptualized. In this model, the different parts of a design form an integrated and interacting whole, with each component closely tied to several others, rather than being linked in a linear or cyclic sequence” (Maxwell, 2013, p.20).
2.2 Conceptual Research
“A conceptual framework for your research is something that is constructed, not found. It incorporates pieces that are borrowed from elsewhere, but the structure, the overall coherence, is something that you build, not something that exists ready-made” “The most productive conceptual frameworks are often those that bring in ideas from outside the traditionally defined field of
Figure 1: Qualitative Research: Interactive Model – Maxwell (2013)
your study, or that integrate different approaches, lines of investigation, or theories that no one had previously connected” (Maxwell, 2013, pp.49-51).
We have a discussion on choosing which methodology can be adopted to help us in administering our research question which is connected to the phenomena of cultural intelligence. We came up with the fact that we know about cultural intelligence as a concept we use to deal and work with other colleagues from different backgrounds in a multicultural context. From our experience and readings for different articles and journals, we were able to recognize how integrative is the positive/negative influence of cultural intelligence on leader-follower relationship. This influence might be steered and mediated by trust, mutual understanding or conflicts, and organizational commitment. Yet, the terminologies and concepts of cultural intelligence (CQ), leader-follower relationship, trust, mutual understanding or conflicts, and organizational commitment have been argued and studied earlier by academic researchers. Our aim is to explore the ground knowledge about these concepts and create a reasonable and understandable intercorrelation between them. We are aware that the current situation of COVID-19 did not allow us to rely on empirical data which can be depicted by conducting semi- structured interviews. Thus, we consider the idea of conceptual research as having an equal opportunity comparing with qualitative empirical publications. We will be employing the information and knowledge which have been pledged in theories about the said concepts. This information will allow us to explore and investigate the possible relationship between these concepts. Maxwell (2013) has argued that the conceptual study is the study of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs that supports and informs your research and it is a key part of our design. “The most important thing to understand about your conceptual framework is that it is primarily a conception or model of what is out there that you plan to study, and of what is going on with these things and why — a tentative theory of the phenomena
that you are investigating. The function of this theory is to inform the rest of your design — to help you to assess and refine your goals, develop realistic and relevant research questions, select appropriate methods, and identify potential validity threats to your conclusions. It also helps you justify your research”.
2.2.1 Research Approach
Our study is influenced by a deductive approach. According to Saunders et al. (2016) deductive approach involves the development of a theory that is then subjected to a rigorous test through a series of propositions; the deductive research approach aims to test the connection between theory and reality. In this approach, data is collected and conclusions are drawn in relation to the pre-understanding of theory. “However, some qualitative research strategies start with a deductive approach, to test an existing theory using qualitative procedures” (Yin 2014) (cited in Saunders et al., 2016, p.168). “Deduction possesses several important characteristics. First, there is the search to explain causal relationships between concepts and variables”
(ibid, p.146). As well, we think that the deductive approach is most suitable for our study; since it gives us the chance and the freedom to base our thesis on theories and conceptual observations, which is the data that will be obtained from previous researchers and literatures. In addition, we need to make sense of the subjective and socially constructed meanings expressed about the phenomenon being studied. By following this path, we think that we will be able to construct a study that is grounded on the actual insight of existing literature.
2.2.2 Conceptual Mapping
“A core facet of a conceptual system derived to provide insights into a phenomenon is what scientists call explanation” Jaccard and Jacoby (2010)
Our strategic mettle and consequences of conceptual paper here is to construct a conceptual model or what we call conceptual mapping for presenting the interconnectivity of the mentioned concepts beforehand. By this way of building conceptual mapping will indicate a coherent interconnectivity between cultural intelligence (CQ) and leader-follower relationship which is mediated by three concepts which are trust building, mutual understanding or conflicts, and organizational commitment. Jaccard and Jacoby (2010) argued that connecting the concepts to each other will lead us to see a number of relationships. “When two or more concepts are linked together to represent relationships, we have a rudimentary conceptual system. It is these conceptual systems that enable us to arrive at deeper levels of understanding” (Jaccard et al., 2010, p.15). Although our conceptual model is not having the aim to build a theory but it might be useful to build a theoretical background for the future researches. It was stated by Maxwell (2013) that the conceptual mapping is portraying of what the theory is saying regarding the phenomenon we are studying, also it will consist of concepts and relationships between them. Maxwell (2013) argued also the there are several reasons for creating conceptual mappings. Firstly, to clarify and pull together of what the implicit theory is, also its limitations and its relevance to our study. Secondly, to develop a theory, conceptual mapping is an explicit way to think on papers and it can help us to see unexpected connectivity of concepts.
2.2.3 Data Collection
Our strategy for data collection will be through a systematic review of the literature, “Archival or documentary research may be an effective and efficient strategy to use” (Saunders et al., 2016, p.184). “Lee (2012: 391) suggests that a document is a durable repository for textual, visual and audio representations” (ibid, p.183). A content analysis of 15 high-quality
Conceptual data on three areas will be collected and presented in relation to the relationships of leaders and followers of different cultures. As we want to provide an understanding of in what way can cultural intelligence (CQ) be mediated by trust, mutual understanding/conflicts and organizational commitment? In addition, to how leaders and followers of different cultures interact with each other. Thus, we need to interpret the text data, which will be collected from literatures, by using a systematic classification and identification of patterns or themes. We will analyze the data by using the conventional content analysis. Conceptual text data will be obtained by transcribing data from the literature, following with identifying similar themes, thoughts and concepts and later categorizing the information accordingly.
2.2.4 Relevant Literature to our Conceptual Research
We were trying to write about cultural diversity at the organizational context at the early stages of our research, and from that point we started to encompass our directions to search for relevant keywords which are related to the same topic. We kept trying, then we found out that cultural diversity is a broader topic which was explored by many scholars and infinitely linking other topics like ethnicity and Hofstede cultural dimensions of specific nations. Classifications of cultures were not the topic that we wanted to explore and intended to write on. From this point, it was a mutual interest to find a theory which can correlate multiculturalism or diversity to the organizational context, as well as, its related relationships in terms of leader- follower. Consequently, we found our aim, which is to write about cultural intelligence (CQ). We have been using many search engines in order to discover and find topics to relate the cultural intelligence (CQ) to the other areas of interest and in turn can affect and influence the leader-follower relationship. We have used four academic search engines like Linnaeus University OneSearch, Google Scholar, Browzine and Ulrichsweb. We have
assigned the four academic search engines using Boolean Logic for the words and topics we are keening to write on. We have used for example bundles of keywords like “CQ”, “Cultural Intelligence” AND “Building Trust”, “Cultural Intelligence” AND “Mutual Understanding”, “Cultural Intelligence” AND “Organizational Commitment”, “Cultural Intelligence”
AND “Conflict”. When it comes to results of our keywords we were searching for, we have obtained a variety of articles and books. The work for Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne (e.g. Handbook of Cultural Intelligence:
Theory, Measurement, and Applications, 2008) regarding the cultural intelligence was the baseline for all the work of academic scholars and their journals. We have found other well-known academic scholars work other than Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne baseline articles of David Livermore and Brooks Peterson. Based on the respective authors work we started to cite the most relevant articles based on Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne like David Livermore and Brooks Peterson work. We started then to read about the cultural intelligence based on the materials provided by these authors which allowed us to build our conceptual model.
2.2.5 Validity and Credibility of our Conceptual Research
We believe that our research should transmit the validity and credibility to the reader. As we discussed earlier that our conceptual model will be depending on the analysis of 15 peer-reviewed scholarly articles and journals, we think that most of the articles we have chosen had done a quantitative research measure where it gives it the sound of credibility. The quantitative measures were based on surveys and questionnaires to a large number of participants. We think that the selected articles have free-error results where the data collection on surveys and questionnaire depend on self-administered and directed to either employees or students of high educational level. Most of the articles and journals we have chosen were
serving as a credible source of building relationships with other variables.
Regarding the validity of our research, we referred earlier that our research based on analyzing the data of 15 peer-reviewed articles. The articles measured what it purported to measure. The majority of articles were intended to measure the cultural intelligence (CQ) and correlate it to the other variables like commitment, trust or mutual understanding / conflict and measuring the relationship and attachment to the organization and its leaders.
We think that most of the participants of the surveys and questionnaires mentioned in the articles are having a positive attitude regarding what the survey intended to measure. The authors of the articles have built their own hypothesis and based on that, we think that the results gained made the article valid and can be used for future researches. For the validity of our writings, we have built our own conceptual model which we suppose it can serve the purpose that we are intending to measure. We think that based on the hypothesis we have built, our results can support the relationships that we are intending to build.
2.2.6 Ethical Considerations
“It is best to go to the website of the institution where you are enrolled and find its code or policy on research ethics and governance and the details of any approval procedure you may need to go through” (Fisher, 2010, p.73).
We will be referring to Linnaeus University website regarding the code of ethics that are followed with regards to writing dissertation and listing what will be ethical and what is not. “Ethics refer to the standards of behavior that guide your conduct in relation to the rights of those who become the subject of your work, or are affected by it” (Saunders et al., 2016, p.239). According to Maxwell (2013) using theory is a ‘coat closet’, in another word ‘you can hang anything on it’. We will try in our conceptual research that any irrelevant information and not related to the answer of the research question will be excluded. The interconnected concepts will be the hooks of the theory
and it will be making sense of what we are intending to connect to the theory.
Theory is a ‘spotlight’ and it will work as a shed light for the conceptual relationships that we are trying to build. In our research, we will be using the theory as a guiding line for what we are intending to spot on. We mean the concepts shall not be working in a divergent or using the theory for a misleading tunnel which can create a vague readers’ understanding.
3 Theoretical Framework
In the theoretical framework chapter, we provide a theoretical description of the concepts human intelligence, cultural intelligence, work relationships, leader-follower relationship, as well as, a theoretical description for trust, mutual understanding/conflict, and organizational commitment. As we think that these concepts are connected to our conceptual models, and can help the readers to understand the concepts and its correlation.
3.1 Human Intelligence
Human intelligence has been defined in the old ages by the Greek philosopher ‘Plato’ as the love of learning and the love of truth. The English philosopher ‘Thomas Hobbes’ defined human intelligence: as the ability to see similarities between different things, and differences between similar things. It has been identified by Binet and Simon (1916) as “Judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of adapting one’s self to circumstances. To judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well, these are the essential activities of intelligence” (cited in Daley and Onwuegbuzie, 2011, p.295). It was argued by Stoddard (1943) that intelligence is characterized by the difficulty and complexity of the undertaken activities and how to adapt to a certain goal. It is a concentration of ones’ energy and the ability to resist emotional forces. Nickerson (2011) argued that intelligence is a problematic concept where it entails the ability to
learn and to deal effectively with challenges even the unpredictable ones which the human is facing at the daily life base. Richard Nisbett the American psychologist argued that the environment is playing an important role in determining the differences of intelligence between the population groups. He believed that genetic intelligence is depending on the circumstances of life in which a particular population is facing. Hyun Ko (2016) has argued that human intelligence definition was having a long debate in order to find a precise definition to it. He has stated that human intelligence is characterized by perception, conscientiousness, self- awareness, and volition. In another article for Hutter and Legg (2007), human intelligence has been turned to have different and collective definitions. One of the definitions stated that intelligence is a combination of abilities required for survival and advancement within a particular culture.
They have stated that intelligence is the ability to achieve goals in different environmental settings. This definition gave us the indication that intelligent leader is the one who can achieve potentials in different cultural contexts.
Yet, we have different portrays of how intelligence can be seen from different angles. It can be seen from the angle of how the human is learning or can learn to be adjusted to the environment. It can be seen also as a capacity to solve problems. Gardner (2011) argued that intelligence is the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued within one or more cultural setting. It was stated also at the same book ‘Frames of Mind’
that intelligences are independent and it can be fashioned and combined in different adaptive ways by both humans and cultures. He referred to human intelligence as intellectual competence. It includes a variety of skills for problem solving where it enables him to resolve the encountered difficulties.
Intelligence when appropriate will lead the human to create an effective product and gaining new knowledge. Using sensory systems is another way of characterizing the human intelligence. “One might go so far as to define a human intelligence as a neural mechanism or computational system that is
genetically programmed to be activated or “triggered” by certain kinds of internally or externally presented information” (Gardner, 2011, p.68). This quote refers that the human may use his/her internal cognitive system differently for the purpose of adapting to different settings. It was posited that intelligence can be identified in eight autonomous intelligences: (1) linguistic (2) logical-mathematical (3) Spatial (4) Bodily-kinesthetic (5) Musical (6) Naturalistic (7) Interpersonal (8) Intrapersonal. Gardner mentioned that linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences can be measured and valued. The other intelligences can be gained and testified through the multiple experiences that the human can gain. It was posited that interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence has great impacts on fostering the capabilities of a cross-cultural leader. Interpersonal intelligence refers to the ability to understand other individuals’ moods, desires, motivations and intentions. While intrapersonal intelligence refers to understanding your moods, desires, motivations and intentions.
Newell and Simon (1976) argued that intelligence is related to the suitability and appropriateness of behaviors that are reaching a desirable end where these ends are adapting to the environment and depends on the complexity and speed of such demands. Human intelligence as argued by Gardner will not be developed in isolation, it has to be interactive. Intelligence in many cases can be referred as the ability to notice and differentiating individuals’
intentions, motivations, and attitudes. “With their advanced intelligence, humans have the cognitive capabilities to experience, think, recognize patterns and solutions, comprehend ideas, plan, and utilize complex language to communicate” (Legg & Hutter 2007) (cited in Hyun Ko, 2016, p.6).
Plucker and Shelton (2015) argued in their report about Cattell-Horn two- factor theory of intelligence which posited that human intelligence has two components. The first one is the crystalized intelligence, which is the total knowledge that the individual has through cultures and he/she uses it to solve
problems among other acquired skills. The second one is the fluid intelligence, which is the quick ability to think, solve entangled problems, and symbolizing short-term memories. A journal titled (Mainstream Science on Intelligence) published in 1994 defined intelligence as “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience” (Gottfredson, 1997, p.13). Suzuki et al. (2011) argued that this definition of intelligence is missing the pervasive role of culture.
3.2 Cultural Intelligence
According to Robinson and Harvey (2008), in the light of globalization and the increased cultural diversity of organizations, it is essential to understand how cultural differences influence leaders and followers relationship.
Inevitably, leaders and followers should acquire new global skills to achieve effective negotiation and interaction both in multicultural and domestic contexts. The role of cultural intelligence is considered fundamental to deal with all the issues that organizations have to face. According to Van Dyne et al. (2010), cultural intelligence can be defined as a set of skills, competencies and capabilities that facilitate adaptation to different cultural situations and allow us to interpret unfamiliar behaviors and situations. “Cultural intelligence is considered to be an important and vital competence (Earleyand Mosakowski, 2004) not only to deal with cultural diversity but also to achieve better adaptation and intercultural adjustment (Earley and Ang, 2003)” (cited in Gonçalves et al., 2016, p. 726). Earley and Ang (2003), based on the multi-dimensional intelligence model of Sternberg and Detterman (1986), defined cultural intelligence “as an individual capacity to work and effectively manage social interactions in different cultural settings”
(ibid, p. 728).
According to Ang et al. (2007), cultural intelligence is a specific form of intelligence focused on the ability to learn, evaluate and behave effectively in different situations characterized by cultural diversity. According to Ng et al., (2012); Van Dyne et al., (2008) and Ward et al., (2011), this multi- dimensional construct, enables the individual to learn continuously and have a better coexistence with people of other cultures. It consists of four bases of
“intelligence”: metacognitive, which refers to the awareness that individuals have for interactions with individuals of different cultures; cognitive, which refers to the specific knowledge one has about the rules, habits and conventions in new cultural backgrounds; motivational, that captures the motivation that an individual has to learn and act effectively in various situations; and behavioral, conceptualized as the flexibility of an individual to demonstrate appropriate actions with individuals from other cultural contexts. According to Leung et al. (2008); Livermore (2011) and Sahin et al. (2013), cultural intelligence is the construct that provides individuals with the skills that promote creativity (Gonçalves et al., 2016).
Van Dyne et al. (2008) argued that the metacognitive dimension promotes active thinking in relation to people and situations. It unleashes critical thinking about habits and beliefs and enables the individual to make an assessment and to review mind maps, thereby increasing the ability to understand. In addition, Van Dyne et al. (2012) wrote that individuals with high levels of cognitive cultural intelligence have a deeper understanding of how people are shaped or influenced by the environment in their way of thinking and acting. Similarly, high levels of culturally intelligent behavior are essential in conflict management, individuals with high levels of culturally intelligent behavior can overcome the natural human tendency to rely on habits, demonstrating a behavioral flexibility in different situations which can include a change of code and an adjustment to the negotiating context. (Gonçalves et al., 2016)
Gonçalves et al. (2016) describe cultural intelligence as an essential variable not only in the range of foreign nationals, but to all employees who daily deal with people of different cultures. Daily multicultural communication and the cultural differences that then emerge are likely to generate conflicts;
this is a good reason for why employees should be prepared to deal with such situations.
Earley, Ang, & Tan (2006) state that “cultural intelligence is a person’s capability for successful adaptation to new cultural settings, that is, unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context” (Eken et al., 2014, p.
157). MacNab, Brislin and Worthley (2012) explain that cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to a set of skills and traits that allow one to more effectively interact with novel cultural settings (ibid). Eken, Özturgut and Craven (2014) confirm that in nowadays globalized world, leaders become more interactive with multi-cultural organizations. At this point, understanding and accommodation of cultural intelligence has become more significant. As Today’s politics, teachers, human resource managers and even students are required to grasp the multi-cultural context where they engage in various interactions with people from diverse cultures. Thus, the authors interpret the cultural intelligence ability, aside from behavioral intelligence, as it is about individuals’ cognitive capability in diverse settings.
3.3 Work Relationships
Work relationships generally refer to patterns of exchanges between two interacting members or partners, whether individuals, groups, or organizations (Ferris et al., 2009). Many authors agreed that work relationships play an integral role in many topics in the organizational sciences, facilitating adaptation, differential access to resources and effective coordination among other outcomes (ibid). According to many researchers, successful work relationships depend on several factors for success in
workplaces. In Tallia et al. (2006), it was argued that the presences of functional work relationships are one of the key contributors to a practice’s success in workplaces. The authors have observed seven interdependent characteristics of positive work relationships: trust, diversity, mindfulness, interrelatedness, respect, varied interaction and effective communication.
These concepts may seem like simple, but they are critical. When these characteristics are modeled, developed and nurtured, the relationship has a better chance of operating successfully. The authors confirm that when members of a practice trust one another, everyone can perform his or her job more efficiently and effectively. “Trust is the foundation for any successful collaboration. People in trusting relationships seek input from one another (and actually use it), and they allow one another to do their jobs without unnecessary oversight” (Tallia et al., p. 48). In addition, the authors argue that thriving practices can often attribute their success to positive work relationships, such as practices that value diversity and mindfulness are open to new ideas and appreciate people from various backgrounds are one of the key factors for success in workplaces. “Diversity broadens the number of potential solutions and enables people in the practice to learn from one another” (ibid).
Ferris et al. (2009) provide a brief review of the key theoretical frameworks that have informed research on work relationships, focusing on dyadic entities, their conceptualization can be applied to the relationship dimensions and stages at various levels of dyadic work relationships, as long as the level is similar between entities e.g., person to person, group to group, or organization to organization. In particular, the authors propose that work relationship dimensions differentially influence the quality of relational interactions, and resultant outcomes. The authors discuss different dyadic work relationships, such as the concept of leader-member exchange, employee–organization relationships, social networks, mentoring and
positive connections at work. The authors presented a thorough and systematic discussion of the LMX domain, offering a two-dimensional framework for the construct: quality i.e., reflecting the attitudinal components of loyalty, trust, and support between dyadic members, and coupling which addresses the behavioral elements of influence, delegation, latitude, and innovativeness. “Schriesheim et al. (1999) identified six subdomains of the LMX construct that appeared to emerge consistently over that time: mutual support, trust, liking, latitude, attention, and loyalty” (cited in Ferris et al., 2009, p. 1381). Ferris et al. (2009) found relevant dimensions for successful work relationships in addition to trust, such as respect, loyalty, support, affect, instrumentality, flexibility and accountability. Furthermore, in employee–organization relationships, some scholars in their expansive review of the (EOR) literature identified the two key dyadic dimensions of such relationships as mutuality and reciprocity. Recent social network research that has integrated a psychological perspective on relationships has focused on trust networks.
Ferris et al. (2009) identify trust that is generally refers to a belief that one can place confidence and/or faith in the fairness, honesty, and integrity of another person. The authors in their study of relationships at work have corroborated that trust is one of the main underlying dimensions for sustaining and successful work relationships. Mutual work relationships are influenced by trust, which must be present for high-quality connections to occur. “Trust is central to all positive relationships” (Pratt and Dirks, 2007, p.
117) (Cited in Ferris et al., 2009, p.1385). “Sheppard and Sherman (1998) suggested that trust is critically important for establishing and maintaining an effective relationship and Fisher and Brown (1988: 107) said trust might be
“the single most important element of a good working relationship.”
McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998) argued that an individual’s previous reputation affects trust development in new relationships, whereby
trust formation is facilitated by favorable reputations, and impeded by unfavorable reputations” (Cited in Ferris et al., 2009, p.1389).
The dimensions of trust, respect, and support continue in importance as critical conditions of relational quality. According to Ferris et al. (2009) that at a certain stage of relationship that is characterized by met expectations, commitment is a paramount demission for successful work relationships. In interpersonal relationships at work, loyalty and commitment reflect public backing of one another, which is critical to healthy relationships because it reflects allegiance or faithfulness to each other. “As demonstrated empirically by Liden and Maslyn (1998), loyalty overlaps considerably with trust” (Ferris et al., 2009, p.1390).
3.4 Leader-Follower Relationship
In a leader-follower relationship, while it is in both leaders’ and followers’
responsibilities to nurture high-quality relationships, leaders have often been credited with the ability to direct the nature and quality of the leader-follower relationship (Malakyan, 2014). In turn, followers are depicted as passive recipients of leadership. To rectify that imbalance, active followership is essential. Lundin & Lancaster, (1990) discuss that effective followership fosters the view that followers possess a vital role in organizations, and that their role is very significant for the organization's success. This view discards the idea that followers carry out leaders commands without independent thinking. This provides insight into the importance of followers as independent thinkers, who are able to implement plans and give input into the bigger organizational vision (Gilbert and Matviuk, 2008).
For high-quality leader-follower relationships, assuredly that reciprocity from both members is critical. “Reciprocity motivates exchange partners to maintain balance between what they give and receive because when an imbalance exists, those who over-benefit feel guilt and shame for not being
able to reciprocate, and those who under-benefit are dissatisfied because of the resulting injustice (Price and Van Vugt, 2014). In leader-follower relationships, reciprocity may be especially important because followers (not leaders) are in the position to receive help, whereas leaders (not followers) are in the position to provide help (Ashford et al., 2003; Martinez et al., 2012)” (cited in Hoption, 2016, p.16). Howell & Avolio, (1993) argue that in an era of globalization, dynamic changes that occur outside and inside organizations have encouraged leaders to shift the patterns of their behavior from a traditional to humanistic based leadership style in order to achieve organizational strategies and goals (Ismail et al., 2014). The authors assert that this leadership style concept is strongly affected by human relation, psychology and contingency perspectives which emphasizes on the quality of relationship between leaders and followers, such as consideration, mutual trust, participatory decision-making, relationship oriented, consultative, democratic and concern with people.
Many literatures on the relationship between leaders and followers suggest that several characteristics normally associated with effective leaders are also associated to the definition of effective followers. Integrity is a key leadership characteristic found in effective followership. Hollander (1992) supports this idea when describing followers as possessing honesty and dependability. This fact links the relationship of both leadership and followership and implies that some effective followers share this leadership trait (Gilbert and Matviuk, 2008).
Kark and Van Dijk (2007) confirm that Self-concept directly influences the effectiveness of the relation between leaders and followers; leaders’ self- concept can directly influence leaders’ relationship with followers. Miller (2007) discusses the effect leaders have on follower perceptions within the organization. Miller suggests that charismatic leaders focus on their own abilities and charisma to move followers to join this vision. These types of
leaders distance themselves from their followers and view their role within the organization as heroic. Adair (2008) highlights twelve perceptions followers use to bear down their role within the organization. Some of these perceptions are lack of trust, lack of understanding, lack of confidence, and lack of feeling of inclusion. The authors affirm that followers’ lack of confidence is an obstacle to develop their leadership functions within the organization because they not feel they are good enough to lead. As a result, followers use this excuse as a means to avoid further contribution within the organization. Similarly, when followers claim ignorance or lack of understanding, they convince themselves that they are not qualified to contribute in leadership roles in the organization (Gilbert and Matviuk, 2008).
Theoretically, both leaders and followers are responsible for the nature of their relationship. Some contemporary approaches to leadership such as in Howell and Méndez (2008) and Malakyan (2014), the authors argue that followers can become partners in leadership by taking opportunities to provide help to their leaders and fostering relationships built on mutual dependence.
Gilbert and Matviuk (2008) discuss the emerging approaches to the leader- follower relationship. The authors discuss the importance of followership and potential leadership of the follower. Within this new perspective, followers escape from the box of simple subordination and obedience of organizational tasks and opens up opportunities for innovative followership that generates and enhances growth within an organization, this kind of followership has the potential for followers to generate a different relationship with their leaders. For many reasons and at particular times, those who are followers take leadership roles and those who are leaders assume followership roles.
Westbrook and Dixon (2003) support this organizational reality by affirming that followers engage in the organization as a whole person shaping the
dynamics of followership to encompass a condition rather than an elected position. This legitimizes the concept that followers have leadership potential through possessing similar if not the same traits or characteristics of leaders.
In addition, the authors argue that leader-follower relationships became a transforming force within the organization which generates greater organizational effectiveness. The authors claim that followership-leadership relationship is not so much about position, but it is about their ability to influence each other through behaviors and self-concept. Hollander (1992) asserts that influence is explicit in both leader and follower roles. From this perspective, there is a two- way influence that both leaders and followers carry. With this definition, influence plays a key role in the leader-follower relationship. Chaleff (2008) supports this perspective that organizational effectiveness does not rest only on the leader’s shoulder, but becomes an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect in shared purposes. (Gilbert and Matviuk, 2008)
According to many researchers, LMX was the first leadership framework to recognize the potential for both leaders and followers to contribute to the quality of their dyadic relationships. As Sheer (2015) argued that the uniqueness of LMX is that it focus to determine the relationship quality between leaders and followers, and how they both interact with each other.
The author confirms that high-quality relationships between leaders and followers are characterized by mutual liking, respect, trust, and loyalty;
whereas low-quality relationships are transactional, lacking in trust and respect.
Hoption (2016) investigated behaviors and relationship satisfaction in leader- follower dyads. Consistent with the pro-social nature of helping behaviors, the author confirm that the amount of help that leaders and followers received in their relationship, the greater their relationship satisfaction. In addition, follower reports of providing help to leaders were positively related
to leader relationship satisfaction. Overall, these findings suggest that leaders are amenable to increased follower involvement in leadership.
Butler, Zander, Mockaitis and Sutton (2012) argue that global leaders who work in multiple locations and with people from multiple cultures must leverage the skills, resources, and values of other cultures, as well as one’s own social ties in multiple locations, in order to earn the trust of subordinates and effectively lead them to attaining organizational goals. In other words, the authors argue that the global leader must engage in boundary spanning activities. These activities reduce role ambiguity and help balance internal and external pressures, as well as, the needs of groups and individual. The authors confirm that boundary spanning leadership is especially important in attaining the intercultural and interpersonal goals. “Effective boundary spanning leaders overcome not only geographic but also identity-based boundaries and create a third space in which members of different groups interact” (Ernst & Yip, 2009) (cited in Bulter et al., 2012, p. 241). According to Harvey and Novicevic (2004) effective leaders develop multiple social relationships in various locations, for example through global assignments, and establish trust in these relationships.
In order for leader-follower relationship to become more symbiotic, there must be an alternative view of the leader-follower relationship. Williams (2008) suggests that leaders and followers are the different sides of the same coin. As such, both must create a new culture in which both learn and enact together. For this new culture to exists, leaders and followers must transform themselves first. Carston & Bligh (2008) confirm that they must embrace a shared vision, (Lundin & Lancaster, 1990) supports that they must commit to one another and the organization, and (Bennis, 1999) asserts that leaders and followers should become intimate allies (Gilbert and Matviuk, 2008).
3.5 Trust
“Trust can be defined and interpreted in different ways, for instance, depending on the conceptual nature of trust it can be seen as a reliance, a belief, a willingness, an expectation, a confidence, and an attitude”
(Castaldo, Premazzi and Zerbini, 2010, p. 663). Kramer and Tyler (1996) argue that trust is a subject of interest for several scientific disciplines, so it can describe social, economic, political, legal, and organisational relations (Józefowicz, 2017, p.54).
A popular literature definition of trust is created by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995). According to them trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712) (cited in Józefowicz, 2017, pp. 54-55).
Trust and integrity are the important values in the process of developing such a culture (Józefowicz, 2017). Lis and Sudolska (2015) argue that it was empirically observed that trust in organisations is a critical factor in creating climate supporting pro-innovative thinking and behaviours, through ensuring emotional safety for employees’ openness while sharing ideas and knowledge, which then influences of absorptive capacity development (ibid).
“Trust is an important element of an organization’s long-term success, as it is a central component of effective work relationships” (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013, p.418). Rupp & Cropanzano (2002) argue that the development of socio-emotional resources such as trust, support, and fairness is the basis of social exchange relationships because they involve unspecified obligations for which no binding contract can be written between the exchange partners (ibid). “Mishra (1996) proposed that trust is a central factor in enhancing an
organization’s long-term success and survival” (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013, p.419). Trust is important because it facilitates the adaptation to new processes and forms of work and as noted by Crawford (1998, p. 24), all great organizations have one basic similarity; they are built on trust (Sousa- Lima et al., 2013).
McAllister (1995) differentiated between two forms of trust, cognitive-based trust and affect-based trust. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman (1995) argue that cognitive based trust reflects a rational belief that the trustee is reliable, dependable and competent. Williams (2001) argued that affect-based trust on the other hand refers to the emotional attachment garnered from the mutual care and concern developed by individuals engaged in social exchange relationships (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013).
Gilbert and Tang (1998) demonstrated that communication of important information aids in the development of trust (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013). Trust in the organization should mediate the relationship between information receiving, satisfaction and commitment (ibid). Perceived supervisor support is related to trust because support suggests to employees that they can rely on their supervisor or the organization (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003) (ibid).
When employees perceive that the organization or supervisors values their contribution and cares for their well-being, they will have greater trust that the organization or supervisors will fulfill its obligations toward them (ibid).
Sprenger (2007) asserts that trust creates a lot of beneficial effects such as increasing organisational flexibility, the speed of business operations, customer loyalty, employee loyalty, internal motivation and efficient management; but it also enables reorganization, the transfer of
knowledge and entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and lowering costs (Józefowicz, 2017, p. 54).
Sousa-Lima et al. (2013) argued that open and accurate communication is undoubtedly important for developing trust in the organization. “A large
